|     printer icon  Printer-friendly version of this page

2016 California Rules of Court

Rule 10.172. Court security plans

(a) Responsibility

The presiding judge and the sheriff or marshal are responsible for developing an annual or multiyear comprehensive, countywide court security plan.

(b) Scope of security plan

(1)Each court security plan must, at a minimum, address the following general security subject areas:

(A)Composition and role of court security committees;

(B)Composition and role of executive team;

(C)Incident command system;

(D)Self-assessments and audits of court security;

(E)Mail handling security;

(F)Identification cards and access control;

(G)Courthouse landscaping security plan;

(H)Parking plan security;

(I)Interior and exterior lighting plan security;

(J)Intrusion and panic alarm systems;

(K)Fire detection and equipment;

(L)Emergency and auxiliary power;

(M)Use of private security contractors;

(N)Use of court attendants and employees;

(O)Administrative/clerk's office security;

(P)Jury personnel and jury room security;

(Q)Security for public demonstrations;

(R)Vital records storage security;

(S)Evacuation planning;

(T)Security for after-hours operations;

(U)Custodial services;

(V)Computer and data security;

(W)Workplace violence prevention; and

(X)Public access to court proceedings.

(2)Each court security plan must, at a minimum, address the following law enforcement subject areas:

(A)Security personnel and staffing;

(B)Perimeter and entry screening;

(C)Prisoner and inmate transport;

(D)Holding cells;

(E)Interior and public waiting area security;

(F)Courtroom security;

(G)Jury trial procedures;

(H)High-profile and high-risk trial security;

(I)Judicial protection;

(J)Incident reporting and recording;

(K)Security personnel training;

(L)Courthouse security communication;

(M)Hostage, escape, lockdown, and active shooter procedures;

(N)Firearms policies and procedures; and

(O)Restraint of defendants.

(3)Each court security plan should address additional security issues as needed.

(c) Court security assessment and assessment report

At least once every two years, the presiding judge and the sheriff or marshal are responsible for conducting an assessment of security with respect to all court operations. The assessment must include a comprehensive review of the court's physical security profile and security protocols and procedures. The assessment should identify security weaknesses, resource deficiencies, compliance with the court security plan, and any need for changes to the court security plan. The assessment must be summarized in a written assessment report.

(d) Submission of court a plan to the Judicial Council

On or before November 1, 2009, each superior court must submit a court security plan to the Judicial Council. On or before February 1, 2011, and each succeeding February 1, each superior court must give notice to the Judicial Council whether it has made any changes to the court security plan and, if so, identify each change made and provide copies of the current court security plan and current assessment report. In preparing any submission, a court may request technical assistance from Judicial Council staff.

(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2016.)

(e) Plan review process

Judicial Council staff will evaluate for completeness submissions identified in (d). Annually, the submissions and evaluations will be provided to the Court Security Advisory Committee. Any submissions determined by the advisory committee to be incomplete or deficient must be returned to the submitting court for correction and completion.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2016.)

(f) Delegation

The presiding judge may delegate any of the specific duties listed in this rule to another judge or, if the duty does not require the exercise of judicial authority, to the court executive officer or other court employee. The presiding judge remains responsible for all duties listed in this rule even if he or she has delegated particular tasks to someone else.

Rule 10.172 amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted effective January 1, 2009.

Advisory Committee Comment

This rule is adopted to comply with the mandate in Government Code section 69925, which requires the Judicial Council to provide for the areas to be addressed in a court security plan and to establish a process for the review of such plans.

[ Back to Top ]